I don't have problems understanding the English language. But I have problems understanding your own brand of it. Let's call it Caputhglish.

As usual, you only answer the some of the questions I've provided and ignore the rest. And of course, you CONTINUE to indulge in character assassinations with just about every person listed above, automatically assuming they're discredited because they're not necessarily scientists, which doesn't necessarily mean they should be discredited. You can be an expert in a field without a degree or traditional training. And once again, you're compounding global warming with climate change. They are two different things. Not only that, but I never said all 31,000 scientists are funded by world governments (don't ask me the exact quantity that are government funded because I don't know). So your calculation is way off and quite laughable. Also, not all industries are even interested in, let alone preoccupied with funding researchers or scientists, regardless of whether they believe in global warming or not. So when one questions who's funded by who, you'll get quite a variety of answers from a myriad of diverse industries and governments. And once again, MANY scientists agreed with Al Gore's claims and were clearly WRONG.

Actually, I answered every single one of your points - read it again.

Next time you go to hospital for major surgery, then I'm sure you'll be glad to be operated on by somebody who claims to be an expert in his field "without a degree or traditional training", rather than a fully qualified doctor.

It's not me who is confusing global warming with global climate change - it's you, with comments about cold winters in Vancouver.

You mentioned the figures of 31,000 scientists, 30 years and 5 billion dollars, I didn't. Now you seem incapable of saying how "many" of the "many scientists", who are part of the 31,000 scientists (of what, from were?), received the 5 billion dollars over a period of 30 years. Could it be that you might have gotten the 31,000 figure slightly mixed up with another figure or another context?Perhaps you could help us by telling us where you got these figures from?

Al Gore's figures were based on Dr. Malowski's ( not MANY scientists).

Gore claimed at the time..."Some of the models suggest to Dr [Wieslav] Maslowski that there is a 75 per cent chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during the summer months, could be completely ice-free within five to seven years."

It turns out that even Malowski was unhappy with Gore using this figure, stating afterwards...“It’s unclear to me how this figure was arrived at... I would never try to estimate likelihood at anything as exact as this.”

Apparently..."Mr Gore’s office later admitted that the 75 per cent figure was one used by Dr Maslowksi as a “ballpark figure” several years ago in a conversation with Mr Gore."

The same site goes on to state..."While the disappearance of summer sea ice is difficult to predict, a 2013 review of different approaches (including Maslowski’s) summarized the range of various predictions for the first ice-free summer in the Arctic:

We have investigated three approaches to predicting 21st century summer Arctic sea ice loss as represented by trendsetters, stochasters, and modelers [three quantitative approaches used to make predictions]. At present, it is not possible to completely choose one approach over another as all approaches have strengths and weaknesses. […]

Time horizons for summer sea ice loss of these three approaches turns out to be roughly 2020, 2030, and 2040 respectively for trendsetters, stochasters, and modelers. […]

It is reasonable to conclude that Arctic sea ice loss is very likely to occur in the ﬁrst rather than the second half of the 21st century, with a possibility of loss within a decade or two."(https://www.snopes.com/ice-caps-melt-gore-2014/)

Even in Gore's extremely sloppy statement he refers to...

a) some of the modelsb) suggestc) arctic summer ice levels will be at 0d) at a 75% chance.

This is a slightly more measured statement than John Coleman's who you cite in your videos:'There is no significant global warming and I'm the guy that is just doggone sure of that'.

However, I would agree that Gore was unhelpfully employing propaganda. Which is why Gore is on my list of climate change "experts" who I do not trust.

All the same: which picture shows more ice?

I didn't mention all industries. I said: e.g. fossil fuel companies, logging companies, car companies and some national governments.

_________________"I have learned from my mistakes, and I am sure I can repeat them exactly."

Instead of throwing stones from a glass house (which is seemingly your entire shtick?), maybe you should come back to this thread when you have something intelligent to post...?

Caputh wrote:

Actually, I answered every single one of your points - read it again.

No, you did NOT. And until you do, I'm going to ignore your posts and instead continue to post 1 clip per day that discredits global warming and shows how climate change isn't happening as quickly as the left state it is. Here's #9:

Instead of throwing stones from a glass house (which is seemingly your entire shtick?), maybe you should come back to this thread when you have something intelligent to post...?

Caputh wrote:

Actually, I answered every single one of your points - read it again.

No, you did NOT. And until you do, I'm going to ignore your posts and instead continue to post 1 clip per day that discredits global warming and shows how climate change isn't happening as quickly as the left state it is. Here's #9:

Perhaps you could tell me which points I have not addressed, in your opinion?Video 9 consists of discussion between William Happer and Stefan Molyneux

Happer is an atomic scientist who "...describes his laboratory's research interests in atomic physics: "we're interested in the mechanisms that limit the performance of optical pumping systems, such as atomic clocks, magnetometers, and laser guide-star adaptive optics systems."

He therefore has not studied climate change or "global warming" in any depth.

His views that most of the warming has probably been due to natural causes, that some small fraction of the 1° C warming during the past two centuries must have been due to increasing CO2 and that C02 is purely "a boon to plant life" have been described by the IPCC as “simply not true”. The Columbia Journalism Review described one of his published papers as "shameful".

In addition, his views are contradicted by Paltridge (see video 6 above) who believes that humans caused increased levels of carbon dioxide, that climate change is happening as a result, but that the effects will not be as extreme as others claim. Paltridge also happens to be the only qualified climate scientist you have quoted up until now.

So the views of your expert in video 6 and the views of your "expert" in video 9 are utterly conflicting. Who should climate change denialists believe? Paltridge or Happer?

I also found the following amusing...

"In December 2015, Happer was targeted in a sting operation by the environmental activist group Greenpeace; posing as consultants for a Middle Eastern oil and gas company, they asked Happer to write a report touting the benefits of rising carbon emissions. Happer asked the fee to be donated to the climate-change skeptic organization CO2 Coalition, which suggested that he reached out to the Donors Trust to keep the source of funds secret; hiding funding in that way is lawful under US law. Happer acknowledged that his report would probably not pass peer-review with a scientific journal."

Instead of throwing stones from a glass house (which is seemingly your entire shtick?), maybe you should come back to this thread when you have something intelligent to post...?

How would you know?My "shtick", at least when it comes to responding to your posts, is popping your bubbles of FACTS and more hilariously PROOFs, hahaha, those videos, hahahaha. I'd say that I can't believe you fall for the shit in those videos, but easily, yep easily, hahahaha I might as well try to find something intelligent to post about a ham sandwich.

“Have you learned the lessons only of those who admired you, and were tender with you, and stood aside for you? Have you not learned great lessons from those who braced themselves against you, and disputed passage with you?”― Walt Whitman

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Don't Be Stupid Unless You Want To

Simply fact is it doesn't matter the cause of climate change because the ice is melting, within the ice is contained 90% of all naturally created C02 since the planet formed an atmosphere...

Because of this on going melting it is imperative that humans decrease and ultimately stop creating these gases as soon as possible in order to avoid the man made C02 combining with the naturally occurring C02 that is escaping from the ice melt to create what we can call a C02 squared event that will lead to run away warming and ultimately the possible extinction of life on the planet...

Conversation over, what is causing it is irrelevant the fact that it is happening forces humans to end man made green house gases to have even a chance of stopping the ice melt and its subsequent release of naturally occurring C02 stored there...

We don't end up with water world we end up with a Venus like world where nothing living exists...

Instead of throwing stones from a glass house (which is seemingly your entire shtick?), maybe you should come back to this thread when you have something intelligent to post...?

How would you know?My "shtick", at least when it comes to responding to your posts, is popping your bubbles of FACTS and more hilariously PROOFs, hahaha, those videos, hahahaha. I'd say that I can't believe you fall for the shit in those videos, but easily, yep easily, hahahaha I might as well try to find something intelligent to post about a ham sandwich.

“Have you learned the lessons only of those who admired you, and were tender with you, and stood aside for you? Have you not learned great lessons from those who braced themselves against you, and disputed passage with you?”― Walt Whitman

And another part of your "shtick", is to act like you've discredited me when you clearly haven't. Because in case you don't already know, stating, "hahahahahahahaha", is not an argument. Nor is stating, "Yer boring."

...And another part of your "shtick", is to act like you've discredited me when you clearly haven't. Because in case you don't already know, stating, "hahahahahahahaha", is not an argument. Nor is stating, "Yer boring."

Discredit what? Your love of Trump? Your love of U2 and Journey? Your lack of understanding of science? Your predictions that never went anywhere in 5... 4... 3... blablabla? I said I pop bubbles... bubbles are empty.

Though I guess there are exceptions.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Don't Be Stupid Unless You Want To

...And another part of your "shtick", is to act like you've discredited me when you clearly haven't. Because in case you don't already know, stating, "hahahahahahahaha", is not an argument. Nor is stating, "Yer boring."

Discredit what? Your love of Trump? Your love of U2 and Journey? Your lack of understanding of science? Your predictions that never went anywhere in 5... 4... 3... blablabla?

And neither is, "blablabla."

Though, you are correct that my prediction about the USD bubble exploding is incorrect...so far.

Video 11 contains another loony. This time, it's the Conservative politician, former shirt shop owner and non-scientist Lord Christopher Monckton. Apart from moaning about the fact that he cannot take up a seat in the House of Lords because the hereditary peerage has been abolished, Monckton made the suggestion when aids first broke out that... "there is only one way to stop AIDS. That is to screen the entire population regularly and to quarantine all carriers of the disease for life. Every member of the population should be blood-tested every month ... all those found to be infected with the virus, even if only as carriers, should be isolated compulsorily, immediately, and permanently."

He also claimed that "official survey after official survey had shown that homosexuals had an average of 500-1,000 partners in their sexually active lifetime, and that some had as many as 20,000."

So, I'm not sure whether he has such a great track record on statistics as he claims in your video.

He believes that CO2 levels have no effect on the atmosphere. When these views were criticized by Professor John P. Abraham, Monckton attempted to get him subject to disciplinary measures by The University of St Thomas, a claim the university rejected.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christoph ... _Brenchley

which quotes the following report:"The number of papers rejecting AGW [Anthropogenic, or human-caused, Global Warming] is a miniscule proportion of the published research, with the percentage slightly decreasing over time. Among papers expressing a position on AGW, an overwhelming percentage (97.2% based on self-ratings, 97.1% based on abstract ratings) endorses the scientific consensus on AGW.”

Is anybody apart from me watching these videos?

Disco Boy - do you actually watch them before you post them?

Stefan Molyneux's getting really boring and predictable. This is the third one, now. I found his dentist comparison particularly risible.

And I hate to point out another character suicide, but it also appears that many people think that he is running a cult:"Partly what's going on with the people on the Internet who are indoctrinated, they spend lots of hours on the computer. Videos can have them up all night for several nights in a row. Molyneux knows how to talk like he knows what he's talking about, despite very little academic research. He cites this and cites that, and presents it as the whole truth. It dismantles people's sense of self and replaces it with his sense of confidence about how to fix the world." (Steven Hassan, a licensed mental health counselor with experience on cults)

Apparently, he does this because he thinks mothers always corrupt their children. "If we could just get people to be nice to their babies for five years straight, that would be it for war, drug abuse, addiction, promiscuity, sexually transmitted diseases, ... Almost all would be completely eliminated, because they all arise from dysfunctional early childhood experiences, which are all run by women."https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan_Mo ... an-2008-26

Find some more Garth Paltridge, at least he's got a vague idea of what he's talking about.

_________________"I have learned from my mistakes, and I am sure I can repeat them exactly."

Oh and btw, last winter, Vancouver got hit by the hardest snowfall we've had in nearly a DECADE, and we just got hit with snow earlier this morning, even though it's only early November - which I don't believe has ever happened in my lifetime. And over the past 4-5 years, we've also had some of the coldest winters in DECADES. It must be global warming!!! ROTF!!!

Yet there is no avoiding time...the years of promise, gone and unrecoverable, of the land almost allowed to claim its better destiny, only to have the claim jumped by evildoers known all too well, and taken instead and held hostage to the future we all must live in now forever.

I don't believe the concept of global warming is that far fetched at all and I do believe it can quite possibly co-exist with colder winters. One does not necessarily negate the other. Two such extremes are not unlikely at all...simply take into account the climatic environment of a desert for example. Fry your ass in the day....freeze your ass off in the night.

A simplification would be to see the desert's extreme of day and night as comparable to the yearly season's extreme of summer and winter.

In this video he is attempting to spin a global conspiracy theory to promote climate change science that involves nearly all scientists, nearly all universities, nearly all investment markets, nearly all media, nearly all governments, neraly all of the UN and nearly all civil services in nearly all countries in the world.

Hitler had it easier - he just blamed the Jews.

Poly's right - I'm going to lay in a pause in conversation with you. At the moment, I feel like a man poking a dying hedgehog with a stick.

Simply fact is it doesn't matter the cause of climate change because the ice is melting, within the ice is contained 90% of all naturally created C02 since the planet formed an atmosphere...

Because of this on going melting it is imperative that humans decrease and ultimately stop creating these gases as soon as possible in order to avoid the man made C02 combining with the naturally occurring C02 that is escaping from the ice melt to create what we can call a C02 squared event that will lead to run away warming and ultimately the possible extinction of life on the planet...

Conversation over, what is causing it is irrelevant the fact that it is happening forces humans to end man made green house gases to have even a chance of stopping the ice melt and its subsequent release of naturally occurring C02 stored there...

We don't end up with water world we end up with a Venus like world where nothing living exists...

I'm bumping this because if read and understood it ends any need to define a cause for climate change, but in fact gives a cause to reduce as many green house gases especially C02 as fast as possible...r

Good luck with that plook.I think there was a guy named Tesla around the 1900's that had the same thinking.Remember what happened to him?Think Westinghouse and Edison. Cheeto had nothing to do with that little strong arming.

My real comment was about being lectured by people that propagate the carbon footprint by their own actions and then try to shame the rest of us about climate change.Kinda like Al Gore flying around the world telling us much we are hurting the planet.It's the reason I don't fly or drive as much as I use to or have a job that necessitates that type of ' foot printing '.I really miss parachuting into a strange city for fun or taking a nice 2 hour Sunday drive.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum